NationStates Jolt Archive

http://galileowaswrong.com/

Click the link and go to the right side of the page and read the excerpt from chaper 9. But let me just say that no it do NOT believe any of that and I'm not going to argue for them; I'm not that stupid. I just thought NSG would want an excuse to mock the idiots of the world.

That might be the most rediculous thing I have read this month. This deserves to exposed to the NS world so they can mock it openly.

It's a sad fact that people like this breed.

What a bunch of dumbfucks. I'm too tired and hurting to give this the good ripping it deserves. Let the games begin!!

In the sense that Einsteinian relativity allows for any point to be chosen as the centre of the universe (the rest is just mathematical translation), Galileo was wrong. These guys, however, are dogmatic to a fault.

http://b3ta.cr3ation.co.uk/data/ScannersExplodingHead.gif

Apparently the fact that "Copernicus' system had more epicycles than Ptolemy (sic)" has been kept from me for 500 years. Funny the way they taught me that in about the first month of college. Pretty lousy way to keep a secret.

http://b3ta.cr3ation.co.uk/data/ScannersExplodingHead.gif

This is sick but appropriate considering the BS on that link. I have this feeling I just wasted 10 seconds of my life by reading that garbage.

One thing that I found interesting:

the possibility that space-time was finite but had no boundary

Finite, adj.
1. Limited, constrained by bounds, impermanent

GG, Stephen.

It's a sad fact that people like this breed.

Its also a sad fact that they try to impose their vies on others thus making more stupid people.

Its also a sad fact that they try to impose their vies on others thus making more stupid people.
That would require other people to listen to them, though.

One thing that I found interesting:

GG, Stephen.
*blinks*
It's space/time, it's not a river or a wall.

*blinks*
It's space/time, it's not a river or a wall.

What I was saying is that he claims that it is finite but without bounds, which is impossible since the very definition of finite is something with bounds. Just pointing out a logical inconsistency :)

What I was saying is that he claims that it is finite but without bounds, which is impossible since the very definition of finite is something with bounds. Just pointing out a logical inconsistency :)
I believe he is using finite in the "You can count how much of it there is" (ie measure it's volume and get a number you can write down). That does not require it to have bounds, or if it did have bounds, finite bounds.

What I was saying is that he claims that it is finite but without bounds, which is impossible since the very definition of finite is something with bounds. Just pointing out a logical inconsistency :)
Not when talking about the stuff that reality is created from. Meaning that it could have a begining, but not an ending.

*Cosmology always makes peoples heads hurt because it never makes any logical sense*

Sagan had a grand ole time w/it .... *shrugs*

Earth is the center of at least one universe.

The human universe.:cool:

Or is it the universe of shit heads?;)

The human universe.:cool:

Or is it the universe of shit heads?;)Po-TAY-to
po-TAH-to

Well, shit. Now I've got a huge-ass Dyson sphere and a gigatic armada floating in orbit that's completely useless. Fuck you guys, I'm going to Andromeda. You can keep your screwed up galaxy, I don't want it. :mad:

Well, shit. Now I've got a huge-ass Dyson sphere floating in orbit that's completely useless. Not COMPLETELY useless. I'm sure Geordi and Scotty can make some use of it.
Fuck you guys, I'm going to Andromeda. (Cartman's voice)

Anywhere is within walking distance, if you have the time.

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by Steven Wright
Anywhere is within walking distance, if you have the time.

...not if it's over water :D

Not COMPLETELY useless. I'm sure Geordi and Scotty can make some use of it.

No, they're coming with me. I'm taking all my property with me when I go.

Stupid humans with their geocentrism and superiority complex can't a guy try and invade them without some time paradox, superhero, God or otherwise improbable deus ex machina coming in and screwing everything up I swear I never had this problem when I wiped out those idiots who were wasting their time sticking monoliths on everything...


(Cartman's voice)

That makes it even more amusing...

I actually have a copy of this film. It's in my cabinet, right next to "Satan scattered dinosaur bones all over the planet to trick people into believing in evolution."

This has to be the most ingenious thing since the Scientology scam they call a legit religion. Why did they emphasize legit? Is Scientology a psuedo-religion designed to scam people out of money or a mafia? Both?

This is so smart, what they are doing. They know that people are idiots and they make a scam that conforms to a person's stupidity, giving them the false impression of intelligence. Brilliant! They'll (the people behind this) will be rich in no time.

I actually have a copy of this film. It's in my cabinet, right next to "Satan scattered dinosaur bones all over the planet to trick people into believing in evolution."

http://www.warholstars.org/warhol/warhol1/andy/warhol/film/fourstars.jpg

...not if it's over water :DAs in, to hover?

Even water, in its ubiquitous distribution.
Perhaps you can look at it like this ...:
The engines don't move the ship across the universe. The ship stays in place and the engines move the universe around it.

I didn't know you could get that loaded. And stay that way long enough to write a book.

sets the bar pretty high, doesn't it?

I didn't know you could get that loaded. And stay that way long enough to write a book.

I didn't know you could get that loaded. And stay that way long enough to write a book.

Once you sober up, they just start handing you cash. Works just as well.

What I was saying is that he claims that it is finite but without bounds, which is impossible since the very definition of finite is something with bounds. Just pointing out a logical inconsistency :)

The classic example demonstrating how this is possible is to think of an ant walking around on a balloon. To the ant the balloon's surface is finite (so and so square centimenters) but has no boundries... he could explore every speck of the surface but find no end, just keep coming back to where he started from.

I believe he is using finite in the "You can count how much of it there is" (ie measure it's volume and get a number you can write down). That does not require it to have bounds, or if it did have bounds, finite bounds.

Your example does not work either, as measuring volume requires bounds.


Admittedly the ant example makes some sense, but the logic still seems flawed.

If you only measure from the Earth, you're right. Since the Earth is in an inertial reference frame, it could well be standing still and having the universe zip around it at amazing speeds (the Earth still needs to be rotating for these people to avoid lifting c as the unversal speed limit).

But if you measure from the point of view of the sun, it's also in an inertial reference frame. You'd need to rewrite the laws of gravity to explain that one.

They also leave out that Galileo was going to be excommunicated if he didn't recant.

Why are people surprised by this? It's just creationism taken to its logical conclusion.

I looked over the OP's link and I'm confused. Which part of this are we supposed to think isn't a cheap, obvious, and hilarious scam?

What I was saying is that he claims that it is finite but without bounds, which is impossible since the very definition of finite is something with bounds. Just pointing out a logical inconsistency :)

Trying to understand the logic... Finite but without bounds... You just broke my brain. Thanks. :p

http://galileowaswrong.com/

Click the link and go to the right side of the page and read the excerpt from chaper 9. But let me just say that no it do NOT believe any of that and I'm not going to argue for them; I'm not that stupid. I just thought NSG would want an excuse to mock the idiots of the world.

This proves that the idiocentric model devised by fundamentalist, selective interpretation of the Bible is correct.

And that's what happens when religion and science mix.

I'm only here to see if Corneliu has postd yet. *glances around*

Nope? Awwww.

I looked over the OP's link and I'm confused. Which part of this are we supposed to think isn't a cheap, obvious, and hilarious scam?

None of it, it's all stupid so I thought I'd just make all of your brains implode.

Its also a sad fact that they try to impose their vies on others thus making more stupid people.

Don't worry, I'm sure that anyone stupid enough to believe it would also be too stupid to read a whole book without picture. That's what I'd like to believe anyway.

The "Flat Earth Society" anyone?

What a bunch of douchebags.. rofl

The "Flat Earth Society" anyone?

What a bunch of douchebags.. rofl

I doubt a single serious member of the Flat Earth Society is even around anymore. I know the guy who runs their website is one of the guys who joined as a joke.

I looked over the OP's link and I'm confused. Which part of this are we supposed to think isn't a cheap, obvious, and hilarious scam?

The part where we act like it's arguable on equal footing and we can have a raucous debate about it for several excruciating pages. :)

Why are people surprised by this? It's just creationism taken to its logical conclusion.

:D
Clever.

One thing that I found interesting:

GG, Stephen.

That`s probably referring to a theory of space curvature. That is, if you start at some point in space and travel straight, you will eventually get back to where you started. This can be a little hard to wrap one`s head around, so I shall present you with an analogy. If you are on the surface of a sphere and walk in a straight line, you will eventually reach your starting point.

There are other types of space curvature as well, but I don`t really understand them, not being a genius.

Your example does not work either, as measuring volume requires bounds.


Admittedly the ant example makes some sense, but the logic still seems flawed.

Well, a gravitational singularity has an infinite density. This can because by either an infinitely large mass, or an infinitely small volume. It's the latter in this case. However, the singularity still has clearly defined and measurable bounds.

http://b3ta.cr3ation.co.uk/data/ScannersExplodingHead.gif

Love that image. Use it all the time.

*shakes fist*

Topic:
How do people take into account space missions?

Love that image. Use it all the time.

*shakes fist*

Topic:
How do people take into account space missions?

They generally counter with accusations of falsification of data and images. Something I find amusing and absurd.

If you only measure from the Earth, you're right. Since the Earth is in an inertial reference frame, it could well be standing still and having the universe zip around it at amazing speeds (the Earth still needs to be rotating for these people to avoid lifting c as the unversal speed limit).

But if you measure from the point of view of the sun, it's also in an inertial reference frame. You'd need to rewrite the laws of gravity to explain that one.

They also leave out that Galileo was going to be excommunicated if he didn't recant.Or that he spent the entire trial denying that he had argued in favor of heliocentrism in his Dialogues.

God damn it.

One thing that I found interesting:





GG, Stephen.

He's simply saying that space, while it possibly has a boundary, can expand infinitely, thus having no "hard" boundary, or limit.

What's so difficult to understand?

Your example does not work either, as measuring volume requires bounds.How do you describe a finite amount of existence, that isn't contained in anything?

How would you describe what you see, when observing 24 hours using an analogue wristwatch?

How would you describe a Big Bang caused by events after it took place?

It's not really a probem with logic, it's a problem with language.

What I was saying is that he claims that it is finite but without bounds, which is impossible since the very definition of finite is something with bounds. Just pointing out a logical inconsistency :)

Actually, the current mathematical definition of an infinite or finite set is:
Any set A that has a proper subset (that is, non-void and non A itself), whose elements can be linked via an invertible law to the elements of A, is infinite.
Any set that isn't infinite, is finite.

Example: let N be the set of natural numbers (positive integers). let P be the set of even numbers (0,2,4,6...) . let n be element of N and p element of P.
for any n, there is one, and only one, p such that p=2n. for any p, there is one, and only one, n such that n=p/2 . we found an invertible law that links the elements of P and N. but P =/= N, P is non-void and P is a subset of N. hence, N is infinite. corollary: P is infinite.
Of course, N and P are unbounded.

Another example:
Let R be the set of real numbers. Take its subset [0,1], that is, all the real numbers greater than or equal to zero but smaller than or equal to one. This subset is infinite (it can be showed that there is an invertible law linking its points and the points of R) but is is also bounded. We just found a bounded infinite set.

No more boundedness/finiteness inconsistency.

If you only measure from the Earth, you're right. Since the Earth is in an inertial reference frame, it could well be standing still and having the universe zip around it at amazing speeds (the Earth still needs to be rotating for these people to avoid lifting c as the unversal speed limit).

But if you measure from the point of view of the sun, it's also in an inertial reference frame. You'd need to rewrite the laws of gravity to explain that one.

They also leave out that Galileo was going to be excommunicated if he didn't recant.

The Earth's surface isn't an inertial reference frame, because it rotates around its axis (see Focault's experiment).
If you meant the center of Earth, it isn't an inertial reference frame, either. See parallaxis measuring of Sun-stars distances (we use parsec to measure that!).

Btw, Galileo faced excommunication, and maybe even a stake burning, like poor Giordano Bruno.